People v. Davis

California Court of Appeal Jun 15, 1928 No. Docket No. 1033.Published

Before: Finch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's conviction for passing a fictitious check was supported by sufficient evidence of guilty knowledge and intent, and that the defendant waived any objection to the admission of his confession by failing to specifically challenge its voluntariness at trial.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish guilty knowledge and intent to defraud without relying solely on the defendant's extrajudicial admissions.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the defendant's confession when the defendant failed to object on the specific ground that it was not voluntary.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant’s guilty knowledge and intent to defraud are clearly shown by his conduct in connection with the fraudulent transaction, without reference to his admissions or confession.”

“Having failed to make such objection or motion, and having failed to suggest to the trial court that the confession ivas not voluntary, no error can be predicated on the ruling in question.”

FINCH, P. J.

The information herein charges that the defendant “made, uttered and published and passed a fictitious check,” drawn on the Sacramento Branch of the

[548]

Bank of Italy. He was convicted and bis motion for a new trial was denied. This appeal is from the judgment of conviction and the order denying a new trial. In appellant’s opening brief it is said:

“Ernest Clink testified that defendant had called at his home at Sacramento and represented himself to be a steam shovel engineer and asked the witness if he wanted a job as fireman on the shovel at some place in Arizona. The defendant offered to pay the expenses of transportation and after some discussion it was agreed that defendant and Clink should leave next morning for Arizona. In the morning defendant called for Clink and there was some talk about expenses. During this conversation Clink produced a Canadian bank note for ten dollars, saying he would exchange it for American money and use it on the trip. Defendant said that would be unnecessary, and asked Clink to give it to him as

‘a

souvenir.’ Thereupon Clink gave defendant the ten dollar note, and defendant endorsed the check set forth in the information, which purports to have been drawn in favor of John W. Wilkins by Charles Munn, and handed the check to Mrs. Clink in order to provide for the needs of the Clink family until Mr. Clink should obtain wages for work on the steam shovel. Soon after, defendant and Clink went toward the Southern Pacific Depot in Sacramento, and on the way defendant told Clink that he had to stop at the Union Stage Depot at Fifth and I streets for some baggage. Clink waited in the stage depot for about fifteen minutes, and then, concluding that defendant had deserted him, went home and obtained the check and endeavored to cash it at the bank, where he was told there was no such account. An employee of the bank testified that no such person as Charles- Munn had an account at the Bank of Italy in either of its branches at Sacramento. A directory was allowed to be introduced in evidence to show there was no such person named therein.”

During the examination by Mr. Johnson, deputy district attorney, of a police officer relative to a conversation between the officer and the defendant concerning the check in question, the following occurred:

People v. Davis

AI Brief

FINCH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief